Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of claims
The following claims have been rejected or allowed for the following reasons:
Claim(s) 1-16 is rejected under 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 12-14 have been cancelled by the applicant
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2019-185243, filed on 10/08/19.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement/statements (IDS) were filed on 4/7/22, 10/2/23 and 3/14/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner withdraws the 112(f) rejection without prejudice for this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3 - 10, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Tsubota (US 20180373852 A1), in further view of Clark (US 20110213629 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Tsubota teaches A communication system comprising an avatar robot that is not fixed; and a plurality of computers configured to remotely operate communicate with the avatar robot, (Tsubota [0019] reads “As illustrated in FIG. 1, the robot control system 10 of the present exemplary embodiment includes a single telepresence robot (remotely operated robot) 20 having plural functions and at least two remote operation terminal devices (a first remote operation terminal device 41 and a second remote operation terminal device 42;”);
wherein the avatar robot includes a camera; (Tsubota [0027] reads “The camera 206 includes various types of image capturing devices such as a main camera, a side camera, an obstacle detecting camera, and an infrared camera (thermography). The main camera is mainly used when the telepresence robot 20 travels. The main camera monitors surroundings of the telepresence robot 20.”);
and a control comprising a processor configured to control the avatar robot to operate based on used by the unspecified user when to operate based on a used by the specific user when (Tsubota [0038] reads “When receiving information indicating permission of granting of the temporary operation authority from the remote operation terminal device 40 operated by the remote operator who has the change authority in response to the temporary operation permission confirmation request, the temporary operation authority permitting unit 228 permits the remote operation terminal device 40 which has made the temporary operation authority permission request to temporarily remotely operate the specific function, thereby granting the operation authority for the specific function to the remote operator who operates the remote operation terminal device 40 and accepting the remote operation by this remote operator. In this case, the temporary operation authority permitting unit 228 permits the operation authority for the specific function by the remote operator who operates the remote operation terminal device 40 which has made the temporary operation authority permission request, only for a predetermined period of time. The temporary operation authority permitting unit 228 invalidates the operation authority after the predetermined period of time, thereby prohibiting the remote operation of the specific function. The predetermined period of time may be designated by the remote operator who has the change authority for the specific function in response to the temporary operation permission confirmation request. Alternatively, the predetermined period of time may be registered in advance in the operation authority listing database 229 of the telepresence robot 20.”);
wherein avatar robot; and a display unit that displays an image captured by the camera, (Tsubota [0048] reads “The user interface 404 includes a display device such as a liquid crystal monitor and an input device such as a keyboard, a mouse, a joystick, and a touch pad. The display device displays a login screen when login is performed on the telepresence robot 20, and images around the camera which are captured by the camera of the telepresence robot 20. The input device receives login information when the remote operation terminal device 40 logs in the telepresence robot 20 to be remotely operated. The input device is used to perform the remote operation to move the telepresence robot 20 and control the camera.”);
The following section of the limitation has been cancelled by the applicant.
Tsubota does not teach a mode switching unit comprising a processor configured to that switches between a first mode of operation in which an based on commands from unspecified user can share the avatar robot during free time when a specific user is not using the avatar robot, computers having no special access right among the plurality of computers and a second mode of operation in which the based on a command from a specific user uses the avatar robot computer having a special access right among the plurality of computers, based on an external operation or an external command;
Clark in analogous art, teaches a mode switching unit comprising a processor configured to that switches between a first mode of operation in which an based on commands from unspecified user can share the avatar robot during free time when a specific user is not using the avatar robot, computers having no special access right among the plurality of computers and a second mode of operation in which the based on a command from a specific user uses the avatar robot computer having a special access right among the plurality of computers, based on an external operation or an external command; (Clark [0057] reads “The owner then sets times for the car to be available to rent. To set a schedule, the owner goes to the online site and logs in to an owner page. Once there, the owner can set which times the owner wants to be able to use the car, and what times the owner wants open for borrower reservations. The owner page can also show both upcoming and previous reservations that members have made. The owner also receives notification emails indicating when the owner's car has been reserved. The owner can also reserve his own car in times set as available for borrowing if the owner wants to use the car or if the car is unavailable for borrowing.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tsubota/Sikorski/Soorianarayanan with that of Clark to include a method that would allow for the owner or operator to keep track of the operating mode of each of their robots. This would allow the system to be more user friendly and improve the cost effectiveness of the system. (Clark [0156]-[0157] reads “Also, although much of the earlier discussion assumes that users who become participants already own cars for personal use, which are then shared, it would also be possible for users to buy cars for the specific purpose of sharing them within the system. In a densely populated area, a used car might be bought and shared at a profit to the owner.”);
Regarding claim 6 Tsubota/Clark teaches The communication system according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of avatar robots is provided, the display unit displays a list of the avatar robots operating in the first mode among the plurality of avatar robots, (Clark [0113] reads “In typical car sharing systems, a borrower views a list of vehicles that are available for sharing (rent) at times they need to run errands, for example, and may reserve a car many days or weeks in advance.” And [0042] reads “The system can display to the borrower available cars in a variety of ways, such as listing the available cars closest to the borrower's home address first. Alternatively or additionally, the listing can show the available cars that are closest to the borrower's current location, for example, if the borrower is using a smart phone or other mobile computing device that can provide current location information.” It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, that displaying the current usage state of a vehicle would be analogous to displaying the mode that a robot is operating in. For example usage mode 1 could be mapped to a vehicle that has not yet been reserved while usage mode 2 could be mapped to a vehicle that has an upcoming reservation.);
and the input unit receives a selection of one of the avatar robots operating in the first mode and receives an input of a command for the selected avatar robot. (Clark [0042] reads “Once a borrower is approved (which can be done by a representative of the host or manager behind the scenes, with the result being indicated to the user by an email or some indication on the website), the borrower can reserve a car on the online site.”);
Regarding claim 7 Tsubota/Clark teaches The communication system according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of avatar robots is provided, the display unit displays a list of the avatar robots operating in the first mode among the plurality of avatar robots (Clark [0113] reads “In typical car sharing systems, a borrower views a list of vehicles that are available for sharing (rent) at times they need to run errands, for example, and may reserve a car many days or weeks in advance.” And [0042] reads “The system can display to the borrower available cars in a variety of ways, such as listing the available cars closest to the borrower's home address first. Alternatively or additionally, the listing can show the available cars that are closest to the borrower's current location, for example, if the borrower is using a smart phone or other mobile computing device that can provide current location information.” It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, that displaying the current usage state of a vehicle would be analogous to displaying the mode that a robot is operating in. For example usage mode 1 could be mapped to a vehicle that has not yet been reserved while usage mode 2 could be mapped to a vehicle that has an upcoming reservation);
and the avatar robots operating in the second mode for which a user has been authenticated among the plurality of avatar robots, and the input unit receives a selection of either one of the avatar robots operating in the first mode or one of the avatar robots operating in the second mode and receives an input of a command for the selected avatar robot. (Clark [0042] reads “Once a borrower is approved (which can be done by a representative of the host or manager behind the scenes, with the result being indicated to the user by an email or some indication on the website), the borrower can reserve a car on the online site.”);
Regarding claim 9 Tsubota/Clark teaches The communication system according to claim 1, wherein switching between the first mode and the second mode is based on a command from the specific computer used by the specific user. (Clark [0057] reads “The owner then sets times for the car to be available to rent. To set a schedule, the owner goes to the online site and logs in to an owner page. Once there, the owner can set which times the owner wants to be able to use the car, and what times the owner wants open for borrower reservations. The owner page can also show both upcoming and previous reservations that members have made. The owner also receives notification emails indicating when the owner's car has been reserved. The owner can also reserve his own car in times set as available for borrowing if the owner wants to use the car or if the car is unavailable for borrowing.”);
Regarding claim 10 Tsubota teaches An avatar robot configured to be remotely operated by a plurality of computers, the avatar robot (Tsubota [0019] reads “As illustrated in FIG. 1, the robot control system 10 of the present exemplary embodiment includes a single telepresence robot (remotely operated robot) 20 having plural functions and at least two remote operation terminal devices (a first remote operation terminal device 41 and a second remote operation terminal device 42;”);
comprising a camera; (Tsubota [0027] reads “The camera 206 includes various types of image capturing devices such as a main camera, a side camera, an obstacle detecting camera, and an infrared camera (thermography). The main camera is mainly used when the telepresence robot 20 travels. The main camera monitors surroundings of the telepresence robot 20.”);
a control comprising a processor configured to control the avatar robot to operate based on used by the unspecified user when to operate based on used by the specific user when (Tsubota [0038] reads “When receiving information indicating permission of granting of the temporary operation authority from the remote operation terminal device 40 operated by the remote operator who has the change authority in response to the temporary operation permission confirmation request, the temporary operation authority permitting unit 228 permits the remote operation terminal device 40 which has made the temporary operation authority permission request to temporarily remotely operate the specific function, thereby granting the operation authority for the specific function to the remote operator who operates the remote operation terminal device 40 and accepting the remote operation by this remote operator. In this case, the temporary operation authority permitting unit 228 permits the operation authority for the specific function by the remote operator who operates the remote operation terminal device 40 which has made the temporary operation authority permission request, only for a predetermined period of time. The temporary operation authority permitting unit 228 invalidates the operation authority after the predetermined period of time, thereby prohibiting the remote operation of the specific function. The predetermined period of time may be designated by the remote operator who has the change authority for the specific function in response to the temporary operation permission confirmation request. Alternatively, the predetermined period of time may be registered in advance in the operation authority listing database 229 of the telepresence robot 20.”);
a configured to be remotely operated a (Tsubota [0026] reads “The moving device 205 includes tires, a motor, a gear shifting mechanism, a brake, a direction control device, and a current position detecting device. The movement of the moving device 205 is controlled by a movement controller which will be described later, to cause the telepresence robot 20 to move forward and rearward, stop, and change a direction of the telepresence robot 20.” And [0030] reads “The movement controller 221 controls the moving device 205 based on remote movement control information received from the remote operation terminal device 40 to cause the telepresence robot 20 to move forward and rearward, stop, and changes the direction.”);
and a transmission unit comprising a processor configured to a (Tsubota [0048] reads “The user interface 404 includes a display device such as a liquid crystal monitor and an input device such as a keyboard, a mouse, a joystick, and a touch pad. The display device displays a login screen when login is performed on the telepresence robot 20, and images around the camera which are captured by the camera of the telepresence robot 20. The input device receives login information when the remote operation terminal device 40 logs in the telepresence robot 20 to be remotely operated. The input device is used to perform the remote operation to move the telepresence robot 20 and control the camera.”);
The following section has been cancelled by the applicant
Tsubota does not teach comprising a processor configured to in which an user can share the avatar robot during free time when a specific user is not using the avatar robot in which the user uses the avatar robo
Clark in analogous art, teaches comprising a processor configured to in which an user can share the avatar robot during free time when a specific user is not using the avatar robot in which the user uses the avatar robo(Clark [0057] reads “The owner then sets times for the car to be available to rent. To set a schedule, the owner goes to the online site and logs in to an owner page. Once there, the owner can set which times the owner wants to be able to use the car, and what times the owner wants open for borrower reservations. The owner page can also show both upcoming and previous reservations that members have made. The owner also receives notification emails indicating when the owner's car has been reserved. The owner can also reserve his own car in times set as available for borrowing if the owner wants to use the car or if the car is unavailable for borrowing.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tsubota/Sikorski/Soorianarayanan with that of Clark to include a method that would allow for the owner or operator to keep track of the operating mode of each of their robots. This would allow the system to be more user friendly and improve the cost effectiveness of the system. (Clark [0156]-[0157] reads “Also, although much of the earlier discussion assumes that users who become participants already own cars for personal use, which are then shared, it would also be possible for users to buy cars for the specific purpose of sharing them within the system. In a densely populated area, a used car might be bought and shared at a profit to the owner.”);
Regarding claim 16 Tsubota/Clark teaches The avatar robot according to claim 10, wherein switching between the first mode and the second mode is based on a command from the specific computer used by the specific user, for which a user has been authenticated. (Clark [0057] reads “The owner then sets times for the car to be available to rent. To set a schedule, the owner goes to the online site and logs in to an owner page. Once there, the owner can set which times the owner wants to be able to use the car, and what times the owner wants open for borrower reservations. The owner page can also show both upcoming and previous reservations that members have made. The owner also receives notification emails indicating when the owner's car has been reserved. The owner can also reserve his own car in times set as available for borrowing if the owner wants to use the car or if the car is unavailable for borrowing.”);
Claim(s) 2-5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Tsubota/Clark, in further view of Suzuki (JP 2002101333 A).
Regarding claim 2 Tsubota/Clark teaches The communication system according to claim 1.
Tsubota/Clark does not teach, wherein, when an advance reservation is received from the plurality of computers, the avatar robot operating in the first mode operates during a reserved period based on a command from the computer that has made the advance reservation.
Suzuki in analogous art, teaches wherein, when an advance reservation is received from the plurality of computers, the avatar robot operating in the first mode operates during a reserved period based on a command from the computer that has made the advance reservation. (Suzuki page 2 paragraph 4 reads “At the same time, rather than letting some users monopolize the remote operation of the drive unit, many users who want to operate it simply reserve an operation for a time contract and anyone can easily operate within the contract time. Can be remotely controlled, and For a service provider that plans and provides such remote control, even if the cost is enormous, it can be easily realized if there is a number of reservations commensurate with it, and the burden on the user is also reduced.”. This prior art further explains the usage of a reservation system for multiple robotic vehicles that are placed in various locations.);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tsubota/Clark with that of Suzuki to include a method for allowing the reservation of the computer robotic systems. This would allow multiple users to control the same mobile robot that may be placed in extreme locations. Similarly, it would allow multiple users to control the same robot, which would then increase they value and productivity. (Suzuki page 2 paragraph 5-6 reads “A first object of the present invention is to control a driving device such as a robot installed in a special place such as the universe or the deep sea by remote control by a user even in a special place. At the same time, rather than letting some users monopolize the remote operation of the drive unit, many users who want to operate it simply reserve an operation for a time contract and anyone can easily operate within the contract time” and A second object of the present invention is to allow a user to remotely control a driving device such as a robot installed in a special place such as the universe or the deep sea from a user terminal such as a home. Remote control while watching the video of the site enables a simulated experience as if you are at the place, and also allows some users to monopolize the remote control of the drive device rather than, Anyone can easily enjoy remote operation within the contract time from a user terminal at home or the like at a low cost simply by making a time contract operation reservation for a large number of users who desire the operation”.);
Regarding claim 11 Tsubota/Clark teaches The avatar robot according to claim 10.
Tsubota/Clark does not teach wherein, wherein, when an advance reservation is received from the plurality of computers without user authentication, the avatar robot operating in the first mode operates during a reserved period based on a command from the computer that has made the advance reservation.
Suzuki in analogous art, teaches wherein, when an advance reservation is received from the plurality of computers without user authentication, the avatar robot operating in the first mode operates during a reserved period based on a command from the computer that has made the advance reservation. (Suzuki page 2 paragraph 4 reads “At the same time, rather than letting some users monopolize the remote operation of the drive unit, many users who want to operate it simply reserve an operation for a time contract and anyone can easily operate within the contract time. Can be remotely controlled, and For a service provider that plans and provides such remote control, even if the cost is enormous, it can be easily realized if there is a number of reservations commensurate with it, and the burden on the user is also reduced.”. This prior art further explains the usage of a reservation system for multiple robotic vehicles that are placed in various locations.);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tsubota/Clark with that of Suzuki to include a method for allowing the reservation of the computer robotic systems. This would allow multiple users to control the same mobile robot that may be placed in extreme locations. Similarly, it would allow multiple users to control the same robot, which would then increase they value and productivity. (Suzuki page 2 paragraph 5-6 reads “A first object of the present invention is to control a driving device such as a robot installed in a special place such as the universe or the deep sea by remote control by a user even in a special place. At the same time, rather than letting some users monopolize the remote operation of the drive unit, many users who want to operate it simply reserve an operation for a time contract and anyone can easily operate within the contract time” and A second object of the present invention is to allow a user to remotely control a driving device such as a robot installed in a special place such as the universe or the deep sea from a user terminal such as a home. Remote control while watching the video of the site enables a simulated experience as if you are at the place, and also allows some users to monopolize the remote control of the drive device rather than, Anyone can easily enjoy remote operation within the contract time from a user terminal at home or the like at a low cost simply by making a time contract operation reservation for a large number of users who desire the operation”.);
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Tsubota/Clark, in further view of Soorianarayanan )US 20140207601 A1).
Regarding claim 3 Tsubota/Clark teaches The communication system according to claim 1.
Tsubota/Clark does not teach wherein, when a selection of a content is received from the plurality of computers and billing processing for a usage fee for the content is performed, the avatar robot operating in the first mode operates based on a command from a computer that has paid the usage fee.
Soorianarayanan in analogous art, teaches wherein, when a selection of a content is received from the plurality of computers and billing processing for a usage fee for the content is performed, (Soorianarayanan [0081] reads “Accordingly, customers may search for online digital content, using, for example, filtered searches, contextual searches, search-as-you-type, Boolean searches, and so on, to find the digital content 320 provided by the digital stores 326 and/or the other distribution channels. Once desired content 320 is found, the users (e.g., entities 302, 304, 306, 308, 310, 312, 314, and others) may pay for digital content by using the digital stores 326, with account information managed by the accounting management system 334. Multiple payment options may be supported, including credit cards, debit cards, purchase orders, coupons, bank transfers, and the like.”);
the robot operating in the first mode operates based on a command from a computer that has paid the usage fee. (Soorianarayanan [0072] reads “Application developers 314 include any entity, including but not limited to the aforementioned entities 302, 304, 306, 308, 310, 312 that may write digital content 320, including computer executable content 322 (e.g., applications) and/or non-executable content 324 (e.g., equipment manuals, inspection procedures, training procedures, regulatory documents, regulatory procedures, and so on). The digital content may be stored in a repository (e.g., database) included in the NDT ecosystem 300. The applications may include applications executable by the NDT device 12, the mobile device 22, the computing system 19, executable in the cloud 24 or a combination thereof. Likewise, non-executable content 324 may be viewable by using the NDT device 12, the mobile device 22, and the computing system 19. Accordingly, collaboration by using the NDT ecosystem 300 may involve inception of an idea for the NDT digital content 320, and the creation, distribution, purchase, management and revenue sharing of the NDT digital content 320.” Furthermore this limitation fails to further limit the scope of the current invention and thus will also be rejected as such.);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Tsubota/Sikorski with that of Soorianarayanan to include a method that would allow users to buy and sell different digital items related to the equipment that they are operating. This would allow each user to experience and get more out of their current equipment. (Soorianarayanan [0003] reads “In a conventional NDT system, data may be shared with other NDT operators or personnel using portable memory devices, paper, of through the telephone. As such, the amount of time to share data between NDT personnel may depend largely on the speed at which the physical portable memory device is physically dispatched to its target. Accordingly, it would be beneficial to improve the data sharing capabilities of the NDT system, for example, to more efficiently test and inspect a variety of systems and equipment.”);
Regarding claim 4 Tsubota/Clark/Soorianarayanan teaches Regarding claim 4 Tsubota/Sikorski/Soorianarayanan teaches The communication system according to claim 3, wherein the content is a content prepared in advance by an owner of the avatar robot. (Soorianarayanan [0081] reads “Once desired content 320 is found, the users (e.g., entities 302, 304, 306, 308, 310, 312, 314, and others) may pay for digital content by using the digital stores 326, with account information managed by the accounting management system 334. Multiple payment options may be supported, including credit cards, debit cards, purchase orders, coupons, bank transfers, and the like. Multiple license types may be supported, including annual licenses that expire once a year, perpetual licenses, monthly licenses, weekly licenses, single use licenses (expire after a single use of the digital content 320 and can be renewed for another use), and so on, by the licensing/asset management system 333, and DRM may be enforced. Multiple seats of the same digital content 320 may also be purchased, suitable for use by more than one user and/or NDT device 12, mobile device 22, and computing device 29.” Furthermore this limitation fails to further limit the scope of the current invention and thus will also be rejected as such.);
Regarding claim 5 Tsubota/Clark/Soorianarayanan teaches The communication system according to claim 3, wherein the content is a content for sale on a content platform. (Soorianarayanan [0077] reads “As mentioned above, all of the entities 302, 304, 306, 308, 310, 312, and 314 may create digital content 320. For example, the asset OEM 310 or other parties can publish inspection manuals or solutions through the NDT Application ecosystem 300. Accordingly, the asset owner 302 and/or asset inspection providers 312 may purchase the digital content 320 created by the asset OEM 310, inspection solution provider 304, regulatory entities 306, and/or other entities 308, and “subscribe” to updated content 320, as described in more detail below, to receive updated content 320. The asset inspection providers 312 may create digital content 320, such as inspection-of-assets training content, or may sell inspection services through the digital stores 326. Likewise, application developers 314 may sell a variety of software applications supporting the process 150 or portions of process 150 and executable by the devices 12, 22, 29. All digital content 320 created by the entities 302, 304, 306, 308, 310, 312, and 314 may be managed, for example by using a licensing/asset management system 322, to provide for more efficient updates, deployment, and the like, of the digital content 320, and to manage licensing of the content 320, including digital rights management (DRM).“ And [0070] reads “FIG. 8 is illustrative of an embodiment of a NDT ecosystem 300 useful in providing for a collaboratory environment between, for example, between the NDT device 12, the mobile device 22, the computing system 29, an asset owner 302, an inspection solution provider 304, regulatory entities 306, other entities 308, an asset original equipment manufacturer (OEM) 310, asset inspection providers 312, and/or application developers 314.”);
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Tsubota/Clark, in further view of Sikorski (US 11137757 B2).
Regarding claim 8 Tsubota/Clark teaches The communication system according to claim 1.
Tsubota/Clark does not teach wherein switching between the first mode and the second mode is based on a user operation on a switch or an input unit provided in the avatar robot.
Sikorski in analogous art, teaches wherein switching between the first mode and the second mode is based on a user operation on a switch or an input unit provided in the avatar robot. (Sikorski column 8 lines 25-39 reads “If there is no mandated mode, but the user selects one of the enabled modes (selection of non-enabled or disabled modes being prevented), the process may receive 611 the change-mode instruction and ensure that the mode is permitted 613 for the user.” And column 2 lines 48-62 reads “The processor is also provided with a number of different inputs allowing the user to interface with the processor. In this illustrative embodiment, a microphone 29, an auxiliary input 25 (for input 33), a USB input 23, a GPS input 24, screen 4, which may be a touchscreen display, and a BLUETOOTH input 15 are all provided. An input selector 51 is also provided, to allow a user to swap between various inputs.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Tsubota/Clark with that of Sikorski to include a system that would allow the owner special permissions and access rights to a vehicle. This would allow the owner to better control the usage of their vehicle when they are not present. (Sikorski column 1 lines 23-31 reads “In a similar vein, drivers of autonomous or partially autonomous vehicles may wish to switch between automated and manually controlled driving or driving assisted conditions. Skilled drivers may want to freely switch between all possible modes, but at the same time parents or people loaning out vehicles may not want to run the risk of an unskilled or little-known driver using a vehicle in a mode that can be unfavorable to both the occupants and the vehicle when used incorrectly.”);
Regarding claim 15 Tsubota/Clark teaches The avatar robot according to claim 10.
Tsubota/Clark does not teach wherein switching between the first mode and the second mode is based on a command from thecomputer used by the specific user, for which a user has been authenticated.
Sikorski in analogous art, teaches wherein switching between the first mode and the second mode is based on a command from thecomputer used by the specific user, for which a user has been authenticated. (Sikorski column 1 lines 23-31 reads “In a similar vein, drivers of autonomous or partially autonomous vehicles may wish to switch between automated and manually controlled driving or driving assisted conditions. Skilled drivers may want to freely switch between all possible modes, but at the same time parents or people loaning out vehicles may not want to run the risk of an unskilled or little-known driver using a vehicle in a mode that can be unfavorable to both the occupants and the vehicle when used incorrectly.” And column 1 lines 35-45 reads “The processor is also configured to receive a request for a change to a driving mode and responsive to the request, enable or deny the driving mode based on mode correlation to one of a predefined set of permissible driving modes pre-associated with the driver identity.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Tsubota/Clark with that of Sikorski to include a system that would allow the owner special permissions and access rights to a vehicle. This would allow the owner to better control the usage of their vehicle when they are not present. (Sikorski column 1 lines 23-31 reads “In a similar vein, drivers of autonomous or partially autonomous vehicles may wish to switch between automated and manually controlled driving or driving assisted conditions. Skilled drivers may want to freely switch between all possible modes, but at the same time parents or people loaning out vehicles may not want to run the risk of an unskilled or little-known driver using a vehicle in a mode that can be unfavorable to both the occupants and the vehicle when used incorrectly.”);
Other references not Cited
Throughout examination other references were found that could read onto the prior art. Though these references were not used in this examination they could be used in future examination and could read on the contents of the current disclosure. These references are, Koo (US 20190129445 A1) and Walton (US 9305407 B1); Koo in analogous art, could be used to teach a system of shard individual avatar style robots. Thought this could read upon certain limitations of the claimed invention it fails to fully encompass much of the claimed invention because it lack information regarding the implementation of multiple users when making these determinations. Similarly, Walton discusses the routing and distribution of fleet style vehicles. Though this prior art could read on specific limitations of the claimed invention, it does not disclosure the usage of avatar style robots or the implementation of multiple users as required by the current invention. For these reasons neither of these pieces of prior art were used in the rejection of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues < In contrast, although Tsubota discloses login authentication and management of access permissions, Tsubota merely describes controlling access rights on a per user basis. Tsubota does not disclose or suggest that an avatar robot has two distinct modes-namely, a public mode in which the robot is made available to unspecified users and a private mode in which the robot is used by a specific user-as in the present invention. Nor does Tsubota disclose controlling which users are allowed to use (access) the avatar robot by switching between such two modes. Sikorski is not directed to a remotely operable avatar robot in the first place. Although Sikorski describes a concept of mode switching, the disclosed mode switching is fundamentally different from that of the present invention. Specifically, the modes disclosed in Sikorski refer merely to switching between different driving states within the same vehicle, and are not related to access rights. While Sikorski discloses that different mode profiles may be set for different users, the mode switching in Sikorski is based on switching to a mode preset for each accessing user. In contrast, in the present claims, the mode is first set for the avatar robot, and the users who are permitted to use (access) the robot are controlled depending on the currently set mode. In other words, in Sikorski, the mode is determined by who is using the system, whereas in the present claims, which users are allowed to use the robot is determined by the mode. Thus, the concept of mode switching in Sikorski is fundamentally different from that of the present invention. None of the other cited references discloses or suggests a configuration in which an avatar robot has two modes and, depending on the currently set mode, the users who are allowed to use (access) the avatar robot are controlled.> [Page 8 Spanning Paragraphs]. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The current rejection of record relies upon Tsubota to teach all limitation to the construction of the physical avatar style robot. Tsubota is also relied upon to teach that a system could be setup that would allow for multiple user to control a given avatar robot based on some form of request. This is then supplemented with the teachings of Clark. Clark in analogous art, is relied upon to teach that the system may have designated times in which the device may be available to be accessed by the public and other private times in which only the owner or specified user may be able to access the device. Therefore, the combination teaches the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN MARTIN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6228. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270 - 5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN MARTIN O'MALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights